I appreciate your honesty, May I ask for clarification about what in your view "disrespect human dignity." would consist of? Would requiring a teenage girl to share her after swim team shower with a male disrespect her human dignity, as well as deny her basic human rights? For me, that would do both of those things without question. It would, in fact, be very close to requiring her to politely accept a sexual assault, being forced to expose herself against her will to the opposite sex.
You. Are. Right.
There. I said it. Happy now?
My assessment of the situation doesn't count here. Hers does. If there is no better alternative the facilities can be used in shifts, for example. There could also be religious accommodation implications. Yes, certainly, absolutely, positively, unquestionably, you must of course be completely correct on this point; it could not possibly be otherwise.
I'm still voting against Trump.
And so am I, but that's because I think he's just as much a Democrat as Hillary Clinton is.
Here's your problem.:
This entire issue, and the acompanying "Republicans bad/Democrats good" media storm that accompanied it, was brought about by a "Dear Colleague" letter written by the Department of Education to schools directing them to a new interpretation of Title IX, a law which ad the original intent of levelling the playing field regarding the way girls and boys sports are treated in our school system (as a side note I'll point out that this is where your its the majority of your fellow voters" argument falls apart because this is coming from unelected bureaucrats who can't be fired and not from any elected representative). The respected Legal Scholar Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post
points us to an article written in the New York Times by Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk that includes the following:
The federal government . . . has now set in motion a potential Title IX collision course between its directives on sexual violence and on bathrooms. Schools attempting to comply with the federal bathroom policy have at least two possible ways of doing so: allow students to use sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity, or move away from sex segregation of such facilities. The latter, gender-inclusive arrangement, which was in place in my college dormitory more than twenty years ago, is not uncommon on campuses, and a social movement to desegregate at least some portion of bathrooms is growing. Some colleges have made every bathroom on campus open to any gender, and this solution could well become a practical choice at K-12 public schools.
But there is also a growing sense that some females will not feel safe sharing bathrooms, shower rooms, or locker rooms with males. And if a female student claimed that a bathroom or locker room that her school had her share with male students caused her to feel sexually vulnerable and created a hostile environment, the complaint would be difficult to dismiss, particularly since the federal government has interpreted Title IX broadly and said that schools must try to prevent a hostile environment. . . .
According to the federal government, a transgender girl who is told to use the boys’ locker room, or even a separate and private stall, instead of the girls’ facility, has a claim that the school is violating Title IX. A non-transgender girl who’s told she must share a locker room with boys may also have a claim that the school is violating Title IX. But would she not have a similar claim about having to share with students who identify as girls but are biologically male?
Well, not if her discomfort and “emotional strain” should be disregarded. But this week, in a letter, dozens of members of Congress asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to explain why they should be disregarded. The federal government is putting schools in a position where they may be sued whichever route they choose. . . .
And an article on the subject in the Washington Times
Points to a quote by Joseph Balholme:
“The idea that harassment could come in the form of a proposal for a date, but not in the form of being exposed to someone’s genitalia against their will, is a hard thing to reconcile,” Mr. Backholm said. “Most people that you ask would certainly say they are more troubled by someone of the opposite gender undressing next to them in a locker room, than being asked out, even aggressively, in public.”
U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta for the Civil Rights Division speaks during a news conference Thursday, Dec. 4, 2014, in Cleveland. The US Justice Department issued a report Thursday that says Cleveland police officers use excessive and unnecessary force far too often, are poorly trained in tactics and firearm use and place the public and their fellow officers in danger because of reckless behaviors.
Hypothetically, he said, a female college student could file a Title IX complaint against her university, should it comply with the Obama administration’s new interpretation of Title IX. In other words, universities would be violating Title IX by enforcing Title IX, he said.
The Dear Colleague letter
further states (emphasis mine):
As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits
to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities
unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations.4
The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing
regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it
treats other students of the same gender identity. The Departments’ interpretation is consistent with
courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.5
The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian,
as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that
differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent
with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment
requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender
Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect
their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or
residence),7requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them
consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of
limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity.
You have created a situation where schools are damned if the do and damned if they don't (which insures continued opportunites to do the "Republicans bad/Democrats good" thing in the media and elswhere). And threathened them with removal of thier Federal Funding (IOW, they think this issue is so important that threatening to take food from the mouths of poor children is the best way to fix the problem).
If that isn't Authoritarian at its very core, I don't know what is.
And you've also created a situation where any teenage boy can gain access to the places where teenage girls disrobe without having to prove they are actually transgendered.
This is an election year ploy by the Democrats. They want controversy, and they want it to make Republicans look bad (rather than actually formulate a policy that makes sense). The reason why they need to do this is because the Party has provided to old, rich white people, one of them a crook beholden to Wall Street, the other Socialist, and they sure as hades don't want anybody looking at that.